...RCT writes that he knows a "real" researcher that disagrees with this. I know real researchers that do agree with this (Dr. Carl June).
I disagreed with your definition of cancer. I got the definition from the guys that invented Gleevec. To the best of my knowledge that definition has not changed.
If you want to change the definition to suit your beliefs you can. You do yourself and others a disservice when you do. The immune system may have something to do with a "cure". It also very well may not. The "cure" lives where the cause lives, and since they are so far unable to figure out why the cells behave like they do, there is no cure.
If enhanced immune systems and super health were the answer, why do all these super healthy people that never smoked, never drank, and never ate anything with fat in it get cancer? Have you ever been to a pediatric cancer ward? We used to go up to Penn, had to stand in line with all the parents bringing all the kids with cancer into the adjacent pediatrics ward. Them kids never even got a chance to not be super healthy, they never had a chance to be vitamin deficient, never had a smoke or a beer, never jogged or worked out. Why is that ward FULL of kids in really bad shape?
The obvious is all around us. Dismissing it for the sake of a belief that can't possibly fit even most of the people with cancer is one thing, espousing it as fact is a whole nother thing.